THE EU ZOO INQUIRY 2011 an Evaluation of the Implementation and Enforcement of the EC Directive 1999/22, Relating to the Keeping of Wild Animals in Zoos AUSTRIA
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 THE EU ZOO INQUIRY 2011 An evaluation of the implementation and enforcement of the EC Directive 1999/22, relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos AUSTRIA Written for the European coalition ENDCAP by the Born Free Foundation THE EU ZOO INQUIRY 2011 An evaluation of the implementation and enforcement of the EC Directive 1999/22, relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos. Country Report AUSTRIA CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS USED 3 TERMS USED 3 SUMMARY 4 RECOMMENDATIONS 5 THE EU ZOO INQUIRY 2011 INTRODUCTION 6 METHODOLOGY 7 COUNTRY REPORT: AUSTRIA INTRODUCTION 9 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION 14 GENERAL INFORMATION 14 CONSERVATION 16 EDUCATION 18 EVALUATION OF ANIMAL ENCLOSURES 21 EVALUATION OF ANIMAL WELFARE 24 CONCLUSION 26 REFERENCES 35 Born Free Foundation © May 2011 Cover photograph by © William Warby 3 ABBREVIATIONS USED APOS Animal Protection Ordinance of Switzerland, Tierschutzverordnung 2008 CBD Convention on Biodiversity (1992) DEFRA UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EAZA European Association of Zoos and Aquaria EEP European Endangered Species Breeding Programme ESB European Studbook EU European Union IAS Invasive Alien Species IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature TSchG Austrian Federal Animal Protection Act 2004/2010 (BGBl I Nr. 118/2004) NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OIE World Organisation for Animal Health OZO Austrian Zoo Organisation R491/2004 Zoo Regulation 491/2004 (Article 26, TSchG) SMZP Standards of Modern Zoo Practice, DEFRA, 2004 TSR Animal Welfare Council (Tierschutzrat) WAZA World Association of Zoos and Aquariums TERMS USED Animal: A multicellular organism of the Kingdom Animalia including all mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. Animal Sanctuary: A facility that rescues and provides shelter and care for animals that have been abused, injured, abandoned or are otherwise in need, where the welfare of each individual animal is the primary consideration in all sanctuary actions. In addition the facility should enforce a non-breeding policy and should replace animals only by way of rescue, confiscation or donation. Circus: An establishment, whether permanent, seasonal or temporary, where animals are kept or presented that are, or will be, used for the purposes of performing tricks or manoeuvres. Dolphinaria, zoos and aquaria are excepted. Collection Plan: A detailed written justification for the presence of every species and individual animal in the zoo related to the institutional mission, incorporating plans for re-homing and ensuring animal welfare in the event of zoo closure. Domesticated Animal: An animal of a species or breed that has been kept and selectively modified over a significant number of generations in captivity to enhance or eliminate genetic, morphological, physiological or behavioural characteristics, to the extent that such species or breed has become adapted to a life intimately associated with humans. Environmental Quality: A measure of the condition of an enclosure environment relative to the requirements of the species being exhibited. Free-roaming Animals: Animals that have been deliberately introduced to the zoo grounds and that are free to move throughout the zoo. Not Listed: Species of animal that are not listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM, including species that have yet to be evaluated by the IUCN and domesticated animals. Pest: An animal which has characteristics that are considered by humans as injurious or unwanted. Species Holding: The presence of a species in a single enclosure. For example, two separate enclosures both exhibiting tigers would be classed as two species holdings; while a single enclosure exhibiting five species of birds would be classed as five species holdings. Threatened Species: A species that is categorised by the IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM as Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered (IUCN Red List website). Wild Animal: An animal that is not normally or historically domesticated in Austria. Zoonoses: Those diseases and infections which are naturally transmitted between vertebrate animals and man. Zoo: All permanent establishments where animals of wild species are kept for exhibition to the public for seven or more days in a year, with the exception of circuses, pet shops and establishments which Member States exempt from the requirements of the Directive on the grounds that they do not exhibit a significant number of animals or species (Directive 1999/22/EC). 4 SUMMARY Of the 78 known zoos in Austria, five zoos were assessed as part of a pan-European project to evaluate the effectiveness and level of implementation and enforcement of European Council Directive 1999/22/EC (relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos) in European Union (EU) Member States. A total of 461 species (including subspecies where appropriate) were observed in a total of 310 enclosures. Information was collected about a number of key aspects of each zoo’s operation including: participation in conservation activities; public education; enclosure quality; public safety; and the welfare of the animals. These parameters were evaluated against the legal requirements of Directive 1999/22/EC, the Austrian Federal Animal Protection Act No.118/2004 (amended on 24/01/2010) (‘TSchG’) and specifically, Zoo Regulation No.491/2004 (amended by BGBl II No.30/2006 (‘R491/2004’). Key findings were: • Zoo regulation in Austria is incorporated into legislation that promotes animal welfare and principals in animal husbandry. This is different to many other EU Member States which have incorporated the Directive’s requirements into legislation that aims to conserve biodiversity. • Zoos are licensed and regulated by the District Administrative Authorities in the nine provinces of Austria. The results highlight an inconsistency in the interpretation and application of TSchG and R491/2004 between the different provinces. • None of the District Administrative Authorities appear to hold a database of licensed zoos. One of the five identified and assessed zoos was unlicensed but operational. This raises the question whether all zoos (as defined) have been properly identified and licensed. • Whilst some zoos in Austria maintain high standards of legal compliance, results indicate that conditions in some zoos remain substandard and that these zoos are failing to meet their obligations. • Austrian zoos are making an insignificant contribution to the conservation of biodiversity. The majority of species exhibited in the zoos are either of Least Concern (species of low conservation priority) or are Not Listed by the IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM. Overall, only 8% of species observed at the zoos were classified as Threatened. • Of the Category A zoos included in this assessment, not one appeared to comply with all the required conservation measures. Notably, only 2% of species observed were listed as being part of European co-ordinated captive breeding programmes (EEPs or ESBs) and only one of the five Category A zoos appeared to participate in, or contribute to, in situ conservation. • The commitment to and standard of public education in all zoos was poor. On average, 43% ospecies holdings completely lacked any form of species information signage and 80% of signs did not include all best practice criteria (SMZP). • Poor enclosure design, a lack of stand-off barriers, unlocked enclosures and a shortage of available zoo staff often placed the public at risk of injury and exposure to disease. • On average, nine out of ten enclosures did not provide the animals with any behavioural or occupational enrichment opportunities by way of items, specifically toys or feeding devices. • On average, only half the enclosures were environmentally complex. The zoos appear to have give little consideration to the essential biological, spatial and behavioural needs of the animals. • Despite the emphasis on maintaining high standards of animal welfare and husbandry through a multi-level framework of Federal and Provincial enforcement and advisory bodies, the majority of zoos assessed failed to comply with the appropriate minimum standards for the keeping of wild animals (Live stock Regulations No. 1 (485/2004), TSchG and No. 2 (486/2004)). In some cases, animal welfare was compromised. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS The Federal Ministry of Health and the Animal Protection Commission should take the necessary measures to: 1) Review the findings of this report in relation to the identified inconsistencies in the interpretation of requirements and application of TSchG and R491/2004. Ensure consistency across provinces in the correct identification of a ‘zoo’ and the interpretation of exemption criteria to ensure compliance with Article 2 of the Directive. 2) Encourage all District Administrative Authorities to establish and maintain a zoo database to monitor and regulate zoos in their province. This should be updated annually to ensure all ‘zoos’ are correctly licensed, categorised and administered. Details should be provided to the Federal Ministry on an annual basis. 3) Establish criteria to evaluate and improve educational and conservation measures in zoos. This should not be developed and implemented by the zoos themselves but through the independent Animal Welfare Council and provincial Ombudsmen. 4) Ensure that all enforcement personnel and State veterinarians involved in the inspection and regulation of zoos are provided with the relevant training and skills pertaining to the care and welfare of wild animals in captivity.